House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Dec 1990

Mr. Speaker : Is it the hon. Member's birthday, too?

Mr. Ewing : A short while ago, you congratulated an hon. Member on the Opposition Benches on his 70th birthday. You merely looked, when doing that, in the general direction of the Bench on which I am seated. Also seated on this Bench are a number of my hon. Friends who, I am sure, are wondering, as I am, to whom you were referring. Would you care to make it clear that you were referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)?

Mr. Speaker : I was referring to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). But I would say to any right hon. or hon. Member in the House who has a birthday today : happy birthday.

BILL PRESENTED

Export and Investment Guarantees

Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mrs. Lynda Chalker and Mr. Tim Sainsbury, presented a Bill to make new provision as to the functions exercisable

Column 179

by the Secretary of State through the Export Credits Guarantee Department ; and make provision as to the delegation of any such functions and the transfer of property, rights and liabilities attributable to the exercise of any such functions : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

Column 180

Licensing Reform Bill

4.44 pm

Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Valley) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964 to make new provision with respect to licensing justices and to the grounds upon which applications for liquor licences may be refused ; to require a statement of reasons for any refusal ; to set a time limit on the consideration of applications ; and for connected purposes.

I admit at the outset that the title of my Bill is more ambitious than the content of the measure, but it is a sensible, limited measure which is sponsored by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I hope that it will be given a Second reading.

There is little doubt that the licensing system in Britain needs reform. The Small Independent Brewers Association tells me that the public house structure comes from the Beer House Act 1830. The Government recognised the need for liberalisation in 1988 as a result of the deliberations of the Erroll committee. Indeed, the Birmingham licensing bench, the biggest in the country, said in 1988 : "The time has come for Parliament to instigate a detailed study of the licensing laws with a view to their wholesale reform." In July of this year, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is responsible for these matters, said that the Government recognised that there was a good case for the wholesale reform and updating of the liquor licensing system.

My Bill is more modest that that. It argues for changes to be made in the licensing system which would make it more objective, fair and transparent and more responsive to the needs of the community and the consumer. I emphasise that I have no intention of making relaxations in the existing licensing system. Indeed, I welcome Government measures against irresponsible drinking. In particular, I welcomed their decision in 1988 to give justices more powers to revoke licences with only 26 days' notice and to make the prosecution of under-age drinkers much easier. Even so, the existing system can be restrictive and oppressive in a number of ways.

My remarks may be taken in a geographical, or be thought to have a west midlands, perspective, in that I was a member of the licensing planning committee there for two years some years ago. The Birmingham Post has been conducting a vigorous campaign against what CAMRA--the Campaign for Real Ale--has called

"the notoriously restrictive Birmingham licensing bench." Even the editor of The Licensing Review has written : "there is great concern about certain of the policies undertaken by Birmingham and the difficulty in challenging them."

The measures in my Bill will be applicable to and will benefit England and Wales generally. Basically, the Bill contains four measures. The first is to give every applicant who has a licence application rejected the right to know the reasons for the rejection. It seems wrong that, when someone has made what might have been an expensive application and who may have tied up much capital in doing so, he should have no right to be given reasons if his application is rejected. The Home Office says that many benches are prepared to advise applicants of the reasons for rejection, but that is only advice, and my magistrates bench in north Worcestershire tells me : "It is not usual, or a requirement, that justices should give explanations or reasons for their decisions."

Column 181

That must be wrong. They should be required to do so, as is the case in Scotland.

The second measure would put a time limit on the length of time a person can chair licensing magistrates. I suggest that there is a balance to be struck between experience and a fresh eye and objectivity. Some cities, such as Cardiff and Manchester, have fixed terms. Others do not ; for example, in Birmingham, one gentleman was chairman of the licensing magistrates for 22 years. That is not to comment on his integrity, but I suggest that there is a case for limiting the term to five years only.

The third measure would set in motion a maximum period for the consideration of applications that are properly made. Before 1988, that was more difficult, because the transfer sessions met only a few times. There is no such limit now, and although most licensing benches comply with reasonable limits on time, there is a minority which, irrespective of the agreement of the police and the fire and planning authorities, use their powers unnecessarily to delay applications.

For example, in Birmingham recently, there was a £2.2 million scheme for which it took 15 months to obtain even a decision from the licensing magistrates, despite the fact that planning permission had been given by the Labour-controlled council. Eventually, the applicants withdrew in disgust.

The most important measure is to remove from licensing magistrates the criterion of the need to justify a refusal. The criterion of economic need gives rise to inconsistencies and arbitrary decisions, and tends to stifle competition, create local monopolies and reduce consumers' choice without meaningfully protecting the public. Under the Licensing Act 1964, Justices in England and Wales have a wide remit as long as they act, in Lord Widgery's words, "honestly, fairly and conscientiously". It is increasingly recognised that refusals on the ground of need have undesirable consequences.

First, the decisions become prone to inconsistency and become more arbitrary. It is wrong that licensing magistrates, who may not have done market research or put down the capital that applicants did when they entered their applications, should try to second-guess the market, despite the fact that the application would pass on planning grounds, in terms of police objections, the licensee's responsibility and fire objections. It is wrong if, despite those grounds, the application is turned down because it is said that there is no public need for the premises. In its pamphlet "Licensing Law in the 80's", the Justices' Clerks Society said :

"The licensing system, as a result, is often unfair, and expensive to applicants."

Secondly, economic need stifles competition. It is no coincidence that the Justices' Clerks Society said that most

Column 182

objections to licences come from the larger brewers which like to protect their own competitive position. It is no wonder that they control 57 per cent. of off-licences in the United Kingdom. The Small Independent Brewers Association wrote to me recently in support of my measure, saying :

"Our members wish to compete on equal terms with companies who contrive to stifle competition by offering heavy discounts or low-interest loans when trading out of a protected market which our members cannot penetrate."

CAMRA, which also supports my measure, said :

"CAMRA is convinced that the licensing system acts as a barrier to entry and can reinforce local monopolies in the ownership of pubs." Obviously, those local monopolies are not in the interest of the consumer or our constituents. The Government have recognised that. Lord Young recognised two years ago that the licensing system should not fortify local monopolies, but the Government have yet to act. I hope that my measure will be a further prod to get them moving in that direction.

The criterion of economic need reduces consumer choice. Surely it is wrong that my constituents can satisfy the licensing magistrates, the local planning committee, the police and fire authorities of the need for an off- licence and have it turned down. It is wrong that the Birmingham licensing magistrates should turn down a £750,000 application which has the support of the Labour-controlled city council, the police, fire and tourist authorities and the architects, and say that they refuse it because

"existing facilities in the area are adequate for the requirements of the public."

That is paternalistic and arrogant and denies consumers choice and variety. Therefore, the ground of economic need should be removed from the criteria available to licensing magistrates when considering such decisions.

The measure is modest and sensible. It has support from both sides of the House, and I hope that it will receive a Second Reading. Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Denis Howell, Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Roger King, Mr. David Gilroy Bevan, Mr. John Bowis and Mr. Simon Burns. Mr. Anthony Coombs accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964 to make new provision with respect to licensing justices and to the grounds upon which applications for liquor licences may be refused ; to require a statement of reasons for any refusal ; to set a time limit on the consideration of applications ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on 18 January and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

Column 183

Orders of the Day

Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

[Relevant documents : Ninth Report from the Defence Committee, of Session 1989-90, on the Progress of the Trident Programme (HC 237), and the Government's Reply thereto contained in the Committee's Seventh Special Report (HC 661).]

4.53 pm

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House will recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement in the House on 5 December 1989 in which he outlined the Government's proposals for the future organisation of the atomic weapons establishment. Those proposals arise from a full review carried out in 1989, which took into account the points raised by the Select Committee in its fifth report on the Trident programme in 1988-89.

The report of the Select Committee on Defence made a number of points about contractorisation, which the Government have largely accepted. The Committee has not recommended against contractorisation, but said that it should not be rushed. We agree with that and do not plan to move from the present interim arrangements before late 1992. My right hon. Friend announced that, as an interim step, a management contractor would be appointed. An invitation to tender for the contract was issued to eight major defence companies on 6 April and three bids were subsequently received from British Aerospace, led by Royal Ordnance ; Hunting-BRAE ; and a joint bid from Rolls-Royce and Babcock International. After examination of the tenders, the Hunting-BRAE bid was selected as the one that offered the best prospects of improved management and efficiency, together with value for money and safe operation of the establishment.

Hunting-BRAE has appointed a new chief executive and 19 other managers from the three companies that make up Hunting-BRAE. The staff of the establishment will retain their civil service status for the duration of the contract and the new managers are seconded as civil servants.

The groundwork is now being prepared for the reorganisation of the establishment's management structure. The contract provides for task forces to carry out studies in three spheres : to look at productivity, pay and conditions ; cover management information systems ; and deal with long-term manufacturing strategy. A consultative document, setting out details for the

contractorisation proposals was issued to the atomic weapons establishment trade unions on 5 December to coincide with my right hon. Friend's statement. The trade unions commented on that document and my Department issued a second consultative document on 27 July responding to their comments. The trade unions have proposed that, instead of being operated by a contractor, the establishment should become a "next steps" executive agency or a defence support agency.

Column 184

"Next steps" agency arrangements or defence support agencies have considerable attractions for those establishments or organisations that should appropriately remain in the civil service. But where it is appropriate and feasible to introduce full contractorisation, that option is preferred.

Contractorisation will address the establishment's difficulties in two ways. First, the contractor will have the greatest possible freedom to offer the terms and conditions needed to attract and retain the work force he requires. Contractorisation will enable the establishment to gain the additional project and production management expertise on the scale required, together with access to the corporate support of a major industrial company or consortium. Those benefits cannot be obtained to the same extent from alternative arrangements.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clark : I always give way, even to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I gave way five times last time I was at the Dispatch Box. In the end, we came to an understanding that I could no longer give way. As I judge the mood of the House, it is that we should debate the subject back and forth across the Floor in the short time remaining to us. Although I shall now, as I always do, give way to the hon. Gentleman, I do not propose to give way very generously.

Mr. Dalyell : Given the experience of the Committee stage of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill 1990, are we guaranteed that the views of the trade unions will be listened to more seriously than happened in respect of the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers? On that occasion, relationships became unnecessarily difficult and even bitter. Is there good will in discussions with the trade unions? May we have that assurance from the Minister?

Mr. Clark : No, the hon. Gentleman may not. I do not doubt that the Committee stage of this Bill will be extremely constructive and fruitful, and that it will possibly be a prolonged experience. However, the only views to which I and my hon. Friend propose to listen are those of right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : That is shocking. We will deal with the Minister upstairs in Committee.

Mr. Clark : The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the arrangements, understandings and conventions of the House. It is for individual right hon. and hon. Members, who are elected to this place, to articulate the views of their constituents, and of their sponsors, in the case of Labour Members. I cannot give an undertaking that the Committee will specifically listen to the views of trade unionists. It will listen to members of the Committee and to other right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) knows that perfectly well.

Mr. Dalyell : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My question was whether Ministers would listen to the views of trade unionists-- although not necessarily only in Committee. I asked my question in good faith, and I am appalled by the Minister's answer.

Mr. Clark : In every other field, such a combination of functions in one entity would be undertaken in industry

Column 185

and not in government. The fact that the business is nuclear means that safeguards are required, but not that the personnel must be civil servants.

My Department remains committed to consultation with the trade unions on all detailed aspects of contractorisation. Further consultative documents will be produced in due course dealing with specific issues such as pensions. We are always ready to meet the trade unions to discuss any specific issues that may be of concern to their members. I repeat that for the benefit of any Labour Member who was not listening. That is a totally different matter from representations made in Committee upstairs, as the hon. Member for Ashfield well knows.

My Department will not compromise on safety. The establishment has an excellent safety record. The current safety organisation at the establishment will remain in existence after vesting day, and the highest standards will continue to apply. The Health and Safety Executive will continue to be heavily involved in safety issues at the establishment under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, as it does now.

As to the provisions of the Bill, clause 1 enables the Secretary of State to designate activities and premises at AWE. The provisions in the rest of the Bill will apply when arrangements are made for those designated activities to be carried out under contract by a company. Clause 2 ensures that the transfer of AWE activities--and with them its staff--to the contractor will be governed by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981--TUPE 81--which protect the interests of staff by preserving conditions of service at the time of transfer. TUPE 81 does not preserve pension arrangements, although it does make it clear that there should not be a detrimental change in working conditions, including pensions, as a result of the transfer. My Department will therefore introduce a new, private sector pension scheme at AWE, which will mirror the provisions of the principal civil service pension scheme and UKAEA principal non-industrial superannuation scheme as closely as possible. The new scheme will provide benefits that are at least as good as under existing schemes.

A new redundancy payments scheme will also be set up that will, when taken together with pension scheme benefits, provide redundancy payments of an equivalent value to those payable under the PCSPS. I must stress, however, that we do not expect redundancies among AWE's work force as a result of the introduction of contractor operation. Clause 2 also ensures that the establishment's staff will not be treated as having been made redundant when they cease to be civil servants and become employees of the contractor, with the same jobs and the same conditions of service.

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie (Glasgow, Pollok) : Including pensions?

Mr. Clark : I have just mentioned those.

In practice, AWE staff will be transferred not directly to the contractor but to a company formed by the Secretary of State to act as the employer of all establishment staff. That employing company will then be acquired by the company that wins the competition for the full contractor operation of AWE.

Clause 3, together with the schedule, preserves AWE's current position with respect to certain items of legislation.

Column 186

After vesting day, establishment land, facilities and other assets will remain the property of the Crown, but will be operated by the contractor. It will be necessary for certain privileges related to Crown status to remain in force, for security and, in some cases, for practical reasons.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West) : Will the Minister say something about the interface between the AWE under contractorisation and the warhead operation at Coalport and Faslane? I understand that that operation is currently totally interfaced by the MOD, but that under contractorisation, there will be a cut-off. What will be the interface between private enterprise contractorisation and the AWE in relation to the MOD's warheads operation at Coalport and Faslane?

Mr. Clark : I recognise the importance of that aspect, but it is tangential to the measure now before the House, so it is not one on which I shall comment now. However, if the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps he can expand on that point later, when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement would certainly respond. Also, I have no doubt that the Committee will consider that matter as one of prime importance during its deliberations Upstairs.

In cases where there is room for legal doubt whether a necessary Crown privilege would continue to apply after contractorisation, provision has been made in the schedule to ensure that it will. That does not necessarily mean that, in each case, the privilege would be lost if no provision were made. The intention is to put the issue beyond doubt. We will continue to examine AWE's position in relation to the Acts mentioned in the schedule before and during Committee stage.

The main reason for the provisions that have been made in the schedule is security. It is essential that access to classified nuclear weapon information, and to the highly sensitive AWE sites themselves, is restricted to specially cleared personnel. The majority of the provisions in the schedule are intended to prevent local authorities and other non- Crown bodies from acquiring rights of access to establishment sites and to nuclear weapon information. There are also practical reasons involved. For instance, so that my Department will have the flexibility to change the contractor in the future, it will be necessary to prevent a contractor from acquiring security of tenure at establishment sites. Accordingly, there is provision for AWE to be exempt from the section of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 that deals with security of tenure for business tenants.

Clause 3 also gives the Secretary of State power to repeal or amend any of the provisions of the schedule. Clause 4 ensures that the Ministry of Defence police will continue to fulfil its existing roles with respect to the establishment. They include not only its vital guarding role at the sites, but also criminal investigation. My Department will continue to be responsible for setting security standards, and for the vetting of AWE staff, who will have to meet the same stringent security requirements that apply now.

Clause 5 provides for certain expenses that might arise in connection with the employing company to be paid for out of money provided by the House.

As well as creating a framework within which contractor operation can be introduced, the Bill provides safeguards both for the United Kingdom's defence

Column 187

interests, by helping to protect national security considerations, and for AWE staff, by ensuring that they will keep their existing jobs without detriment to their conditions of service when the contractor is introduced. Those, together with other rigorous safeguards that will be imposed through the provisions of the contract, and by the close and continuous scrutiny of the establishment by my Department through the compliance office, will ensure that the considerable benefits of contractor operation will be achieved without detriment to safety, security, or the

establishment's world-class reputation as a research establishment. I commend the Bill to this House.

5.9 pm

Mr. Martin O'Neill (Clackmannan) : When the Secretary of State announced his intention to introduce the Bill 12 months ago, many of us expressed grave reservations about it. Like most people who follow the work of the atomic weapons establishment, I was aware of the difficulties facing it. Last year, I had the opportunity to visit Aldermaston and Burghfield and I spoke to people at both plants. There is little disagreement that the problem was pay. The same conclusion was reached by the National Audit Office in 1987, when it said :

"The MOD identified the basic problem as being uncompetitive Civil Service pay."

The Select Committee on Defence noted that, at Aldermaston and Burghfield, pay for skilled workers is £148 while in the rest of the travel-to- work area the average wage is of the order of £209. That has resulted in the problem of staff shortages in the AWE doubling from 268 in March 1988 to 552 in March this year.

As I understand it, the Bill's purpose is to address the challenge to management arising not only from staff shortages but, since there is to be an increase in the scale of manufacturing, from the weakness in production manufacturing. It also seeks to address the problem of the undue distraction of research scientists from their research work.

Those aspects merely serve to reinforce my original point about the problems of pay and staff shortages in an area where one has to concede that the economy is overheated. If the AWE were to be relocated, the first choice would not be the Thames valley. I am not sure that many other communities would be prepared to have it, but I recognise that some of the past concerns about safety have been unfounded, because its record has been good. Whether that would be the case in future is open to question.

It would be wrong to suggest that the Ministry of Defence has done nothing about pay. It must be given credit for its attempts to introduce special pay arrangements. However, they have often created more problems than they have resolved. For example, when pay rises were given to one group in span 8, people in the allegedly higher group 7 found that they were being paid less and asked to be downgraded. Because of the narrowness of the Treasury instruction, money was made available only to a particular section of work force at any one time and a comprehensive review of pay and conditions was never possible. In a number of instances,

Column 188

the Treasury created problems by intervening. There is no one here to defend the Treasury, but it defends itself well enough by other means.

There are cases within the United Kingdom public sector where unions have been able to negotiate new and more flexible arrangements as, for example, in the case of the highly successful deal for the railway inspectorate, as outlined in the evidence to the Select Committee.

The resolution of such difficulties need not require the kind of Bill that is being proposed today. The model of the Defence Research Agency could be taken. Staff could be brought in from outside the civil service, new management structures could be adopted, more flexible pay scales created and the current reallocation of work between the various establishments could continue.

The present AWE structure is being retained and the various plants are not being split up, as happened with the contractorisation of the dockyards. How the management structures will operate may be debated in Committee. I remember sitting through the Committee proceedings of the Dockyard Services Bill 1986 and being told that the attraction was stand-alone management in each place. I realise that the functions are different and I shall return to that point. Even without the contractorised arrangement, there could be subcontracting between sites and that would assist greatly.

But the basic point that the Government do not appreciate is that the contractorisation of the AWE requires a privatisation of the labour force. It will be taken out of the civil service and become the asset of the employing company. The workers will cease to be civil servants and will not be guaranteed many of the employment rights that they presently enjoy. The Minister said that a number of things would be just about the same, that he hopes that things will be all right, but that no guarantees can be given.

Mr. Alan Clark : I do not anticipate any redundancies.

Mr. O'Neill : We shall wait and see about that. The experiences of other contractorisations have been mixed. Where new management teams have come in with the purpose of, as much as anything else, finding new work, they have been reasonably successful. But if the labour shortages are to be overcome, more people will have to be employed in the short term, with the higher wages needed to attract them, being funded, I imagine, by the higher productivity in the early stages, and that in turn will result in redundancies in the future. I wrote that passage before the Minister spoke and I read it in its entirety because I recognise that the Minister said that no redundancies are anticipated. But will he confirm that no redundancies will be anticipated throughout the five years of the contract?

Mr. Alan Clark : I stand exactly by my words. No redundancies are anticipated. One of the advantages that will accrue from the Bill is a greater flexibility in terms and conditions and pay which will allow more effective recruitment. No one can predict what will happen in five years' time. It would be irresponsible to do so.

Mr. O'Neill : That is fine. We have now got it. At least at the beginning of the five-year period no redundancies are anticipated, but towards the end they are a possibility.

Mr. Alan Clark : No, not at all.

Column 189

Mr. O'Neill : The Minister will give no undertakings, and that is what I said earlier. That is the kind of problem we have had. I recognise that people do not have jobs for life, but under the system that the Minister envisages, money will be made available by the contractors, as is often the case in such contracts, in the early stages when there is no profit, and only as the five-year period goes on will profits begin to accrue.

The situation is viewed over the five years. In this instance, we shall see additional recruitment and an enhancement of conditions, and we shall then have to get increased productivity. Thereafter, as I said earlier and as the Minister has now conceded, it cannot be guaranteed that there will be no redundancies towards the end of the five-year period. That is the only way in which I can see this measure washing its face financially. We will doubtless come back to that in Committee.

Individuals may well be surplus to requirements or not suited to the new set-up, and the difficulty about removing them from the civil service is that they will no longer have access to the other career openings that the civil service offers. They would have to leave the AWE and apply afresh to the civil service, which is a complicated business and which need not be imposed on the work force in the way that I have described.

I am concerned that the Minister has glided over the honouring of existing agreements. He has said that conditions and the private pension scheme will be better. We shall have to look at that again to see what guarantees in writing can be given to the work force that that will be so. If it proves correct, I shall be happy to concede the point on Third Reading ; but, as we say in Scotland, I hae me doots.

In Committee we shall examine the issues surrounding the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981--TUPE 81--but that is a detailed matter and we do not have time to go into it now.

The British experience of Government-owned,

contractor-operated--GOCO--facilities is limited. Neither Rosyth nor Devonport has a great record on job security. In Devonport the work force has fallen from 14,000 to 5,000. The role of the contractors has been to shed labour. There have been attendant problems in Devonport, as the Minister knows, because of the nature of the site, the rent for which is felt to be excessive, and reductions in the core programme and the difficulties of finding alternative work. In different circumstances, Rosyth has probably done better ; it has improved industrial relations and has a good record of winning additional work, but there are still problems with the size of the core programme and with MOD business generally.

The jury is still out on British GOCOs. That is certainly not so in the United States where the problem has been one of safety. There have been faults due to cost-cutting and carelessness. I know that the record of the AWE is generally good, not least since the recommendations of the Pochen report were implemented. We have not had problems on the scale of those in the United States, where GOCOs will require between £66 billion and £100 billion to be spent on them in the next 25 years. The name Rocky Flats has become synonymous with environmental disaster. The House, the communities around the establishments and the whole country will require much more convincing than we had from the Minister this evening about the duties of the compliance officers.

Column 190

Mr. Alan Clark : Chernobyl was not a GOCO.

Mr. O'Neill : It was not ; it was operating under different circumstances. But it is legitimate to compare and contrast the United States and Britain, no matter how unpleasant the Minister may find such comparisons.

The Opposition believe that the role of the compliance officer is somewhat dubious--not in the sense that we are hostile to him, because we wish him well, but there are other agencies and other ways of looking at the problem. We shall also look at this in detail in Committee. We are not convinced that nuclear safety and profitability are always compatible. We do not envisage that the financial arrangements will be generous enough to ensure that contractors can meet all their responsibilities and still find money at the end to make a sizeable profit.

The Labour party recognises that AWEs will exist for a long time to come. We want them to be reorganised along the lines of the Defence Research Agency. We are committed to continuing with the Trident programme, and we recognise that AWE will have to accommodate future nuclear disarmament, the dismantling of warheads, and the creation of new inspection and verification procedures. These establishments are unique and are responsible as much for the preparation for peace as for the preparation for war. Understandably, they work in conditions of secrecy.

The trust that the workers, people who live locally and the nation place in these establishments rests on the knowledge that the director and staff are answerable to the Secretary of State and this House. Labour believes that that clear line of accountability is paramount. We believe that there is a way of resolving the management and production problems of the establishment, and that can be achieved--

Next Section

Home Page